Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
86.158.84.191
In Reply to: RE: Amps for esl63 posted by Satie on March 06, 2017 at 21:13:10
I've just bought a pair of Quad 2905 speakers and are amazed a how much power they need to reach robust volume levels. Granted I'm used to horns but I've never before had speakers that are so greedy!I have these amps:
845 based SET monos - 28 watts
Accuphase A-36 Class A - 30 watt
GamuT D200 mosfet - 200 wattOnly the GamuT is suitable for the Quads and even that needs to operate at its full gain with only about 15dB left on my volume control
In fact to get comparable volume levels from my 2 sets of speakers I use the D200 into the Quads at full gain and the 30 watt Class A (gain set at -12dB) into the horns. How loud the Quad would go with Quad valve amps (apart from their Eightys) I wonder.
Edits: 03/07/17Follow Ups:
All I can do is relate my experience with the ESL 63s, which are the progenitor of your 2905s.
60 watt tube amps are sufficient in my room, but I augment the bottom end with subs with their own amps (Quad QMP monos)
Since the 2905s have more "bass" panels it is logical to assume the need for more power.
I would not have thought any 30-watt amp would be suitable for my 63s, let alone the 2905s.
My room is odd in that while it is 20 feet square, the ceiling is only 7 feet, effectively making it a smaller room.
The 60 watt Dyancos (60 is more hopeful than accurate, I suspect) get loud enough to overload the room if I am not careful.
I will leave it to the more technically minded Quad 0 Philes to explain what is going on with your 200 watt Gamut, cause that certainly should be plenty and then some.
The extra panels of the later quads increase power handling and extension. The smaller ESL 57 and ESL 63 simply can't do much with the extra power beyond 50W or so. The later models are more like Acoustats in the number of panels and overall output capacity. They do want a hefty 200 watter to drive them. Different animals.
"The extra panels of the later quads increase power handling and extension."
Unfortunately this is not the case. The speakers will not play any lower, louder or handle anymore power than the 63.
The extra panels give the speakers more weight and authority in the bottom octaves.
Not sure you're right in claiming that extra bass panels don't play lower. This from Quad site showing frequency responses of their current models - with 2 and with 4 bass panels:
2812 (2 bass panels) - Frequency Response 37Hz - 21kHz (-6dB)
33Hz - 23kHz (useable)
2912 (4 bass panels) - Frequency Response 32Hz - 21kHz (-6dB)
28Hz - 21kHz (useable)
I have 2905 (predecessor and almost identical to 2912) and I can assure you that it can achieve very respectable levels of bass down to very low frequencies
"I have 2905 (predecessor and almost identical to 2912) and I can assure you that it can achieve very respectable levels of bass down to very low frequencies"
And so can the ESL-63 just a matter of degree.
The differences Quad notes in frequency extension is irrelevant as a practical matter.
It may not be any more sensitive at a given midrange freq, but the 2900 series does produce more SPL power with additional power amp capacity vs. the old 63 that played the same with 50 W models as it did with 200W amps of the same basic architecture. Much more bass and apparently louder, which it wasn't with the 63 with similar amps being swapped (50 watter vs. 200)..
"Much more bass and apparently louder, which it wasn't with the 63 with similar amps being swapped (50 watter vs. 200).."
Much more bass? No. A little more bass. A slightly bigger sound if you will, because the middle of the speaker is higher off the floor, but no louder. Power amp requirements are no different.
This is a matter of degrees. Compared side-by-side the differences are apparent but nothing earth shattering.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: